Supreme Court Upholds Union Election Based on Constitution: Karbhari vs. Deepak (2019)

Date of the Judgment: 30 July 2019

Citation: Civil Appeal No. 5936 of 2019 @ SLP (Civil) No. 27698 of 2018

Judges: Uday Umesh Lalit, J. and Vineet Saran, J.

Can a trade union introduce election rules that are not explicitly stated in its constitution? The Supreme Court of India addressed this question in a recent case concerning the Kopargaon Taluka Sakhar Kamgar Sabha, a registered trade union. The court ruled that election procedures must strictly adhere to the union’s constitution, rejecting any additional stipulations not rooted in it. This judgment clarifies the importance of following established rules in trade union governance. The bench comprised Justices Uday Umesh Lalit and Vineet Saran, who delivered a unanimous decision.

Case Background

The Kopargaon Taluka Sakhar Kamgar Sabha (‘the Sabha’), a trade union, was registered on June 30, 1951, under the Trade Unions Act, 1926. The Sabha’s constitution outlines the structure of its Managing Committee and General Council. The General Council is composed of delegates elected by union members from various factories, with one delegate for every 30 members. The Managing Committee is then elected by the General Council. The Sabha’s members come from seven units: Sanjivani, Kale, Changdeonagar, Sakarwadi, Laxmiwadi, Ganeshnagar, and Godavari Bio Refinaries. While the constitution doesn’t specify unit-wise representation, a consistent practice had been followed to ensure representation from all units in the General Council and the Managing Committee.

Timeline:

Course of Proceedings

The High Court had previously directed that elections be held according to the Sabha’s constitution. Subsequently, the Election Officer announced an election program on May 7, 2018, which included unit-wise reservations for Vice-Presidents and Secretaries and reserved eight seats for women. This program was challenged before the Industrial Court at Ahmednagar, which ruled that these stipulations were not in line with the Sabha’s constitution. The Industrial Court quashed the election program and directed that the elections be conducted as per the constitution, without unit-wise reservations or reservations for women. The appellants then challenged the Industrial Court’s decision by filing a writ petition in the High Court, which was dismissed. The appellants then approached the Supreme Court.

Legal Framework

The case revolves around the interpretation of the Sabha’s constitution, specifically Clauses 10, 11, and 15:

• Clause 10: Defines the Managing Committee, consisting of not more than 70 members including a President, Vice-Presidents, a General Secretary, Secretaries, a Treasurer, and Legal Advisors, all elected at the Annual General Meeting.
• Clause 11: States that the management of the Sabha is vested in the Managing Committee elected by the General Council.
• Clause 15: Details the composition of the General Council, which includes delegates elected by members of each factory, with one delegate for every 30 members. Elections for the General Council are to be held every five years.

The Trade Unions Act, 1926, under which the Sabha was registered, also governs the functioning of the Sabha. The court had to determine whether the election program was in accordance with the constitution of the Sabha and the Trade Unions Act, 1926.

Arguments

Appellants’ Arguments:

• The appellants argued that while the Sabha’s constitution does not explicitly provide for unit-wise representation, it also does not prohibit it. They contended that having separate electoral colleges for each of the seven units would ensure adequate representation for every unit.
• They relied on the principle that what is not prohibited can be permitted, citing the case of Laxmidas Dayabhai Kabarwala v. Nanabhai Chunilal Kabarwala [ (1964) 2 SCR 567], where the court held that a counter-claim can be treated as a plaint in a cross-suit, even if it doesn’t conform to all the requirements of a plaint.
• They also referred to National Textile Workers’ Union and others v. P .R. Ramakrishnan and others [(1983) 1 SCC 228], where the court allowed workers to be heard in a winding-up petition, even though they did not have the right to file such a petition. They argued that this showed a willingness to allow participation even when not explicitly provided for.

Respondents’ Arguments:

• The respondents argued that the election program introduced stipulations not found in the Sabha’s constitution, specifically unit-wise reservation for Vice-Presidents and Secretaries, and reservation for women.
• They argued that the election program should strictly adhere to the constitution of the Sabha.
• They contended that the Election Officer could not import ideas not rooted in the Constitution of the Sabha.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court considered the following issue:

• Whether the Election Officer could introduce stipulations not found in the Constitution of the Sabha, specifically regarding unit-wise reservation for the posts of Vice-Presidents and Secretaries, and reservation for women.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

• Laxmidas Dayabhai Kabarwala v. Nanabhai Chunilal Kabarwala [(1964) 2 SCR 567]: The appellants cited this case to argue that what is not prohibited is permitted. The Supreme Court distinguished this case, stating that it concerned the power of the Court to grant adequate relief, whereas the present case concerns whether an election to a union of workers has to be in accordance with its constitution or otherwise.
• National Textile Workers’ Union and others v. P .R. Ramakrishnan and others [(1983) 1 SCC 228]: The appellants cited this case to argue that workers should be given a right to be heard even if not explicitly provided. The Supreme Court distinguished this case, stating that it concerned the issue of whether workers should be given a right of hearing in winding-up proceedings or not, whereas the present case concerns whether an election to a union of workers has to be in accordance with its constitution or otherwise.
• Clauses 10, 11 and 15 of the Constitution of the Sabha: The Court considered the clauses of the constitution of the Sabha while deciding the issue.
• The Trade Unions Act, 1926: The Court considered the provisions of the Act while deciding the issue.

Judgment

The Supreme Court upheld the decisions of the Industrial Court and the High Court, dismissing the appeal. The Court held that the Election Officer could not introduce stipulations not found in the Constitution of the Sabha.

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• The Court distinguished the case of Laxmidas Dayabhai Kabarwala v. Nanabhai Chunilal Kabarwala [(1964) 2 SCR 567], stating that it concerned the power of the Court to grant adequate relief, whereas the present case concerns whether an election to a union of workers has to be in accordance with its constitution or otherwise.
• The Court distinguished the case of National Textile Workers’ Union and others v. P .R. Ramakrishnan and others [(1983) 1 SCC 228], stating that it concerned the issue of whether workers should be given a right of hearing in winding-up proceedings or not, whereas the present case concerns whether an election to a union of workers has to be in accordance with its constitution or otherwise.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the principle that an election to a trade union must strictly adhere to its constitution. The Court emphasized that the Election Officer could not introduce stipulations not found in the Sabha’s constitution. The Court also noted that while the idea of unit-wise representation may be laudable, it cannot be implemented through the election program unless it is rooted in the constitution of the Sabha. The Court also noted that the cases cited by the appellants were distinguishable on facts and did not support their case.

Logical Reasoning:

The Court’s reasoning was based on the principle that the election process must strictly adhere to the constitution of the Sabha. The Court rejected the appellants’ arguments that what is not prohibited is permitted, and that the Election Officer could introduce stipulations not found in the constitution. The Court stated that the election program must be completely in accord with the governing statute and the constitution of the Sabha. The Court also distinguished the cases cited by the appellants, stating that they were not applicable to the facts of the present case.

The Court stated:

“However laudable may be the objectives, the Election Officer could not have gone beyond the confines of the Constitution of the Sabha and could not have imported ideas which were not rooted in the Constitution of the Sabha.”

“The Programme must be completely in accord with the governing Statute and the Constitution of the Sabha.”

“In the absence of the idea of unit wise representation and reservation emanating either from the governing Statute or the Constitution of the Sabha, the Election Programme cannot by itself, invent and implement such idea.”

Key Takeaways

• Trade union elections must strictly adhere to the union’s constitution.
• Election officers cannot introduce stipulations not explicitly mentioned in the constitution.
• The principle that “what is not prohibited is permitted” does not apply when a specific procedure is laid out in the constitution.
• This judgment reinforces the importance of following established rules in trade union governance.

Potential Future Impact:
This judgment sets a precedent for trade union elections, emphasizing the need for strict adherence to the union’s constitution. It clarifies that election programs cannot introduce new rules or procedures not rooted in the constitution, even if they appear to be reasonable or laudable. This will help ensure that elections are conducted fairly and transparently, in accordance with the rules agreed upon by the members of the union.

Directions

The Supreme Court did not issue any specific directions other than dismissing the appeal.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that trade union elections must strictly adhere to the union’s constitution, and election officers cannot introduce stipulations not explicitly mentioned in the constitution. This judgment reinforces the principle that election procedures must be rooted in the constitution of the Sabha and the governing statute, and not on any other extraneous factors.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s decision in Karbhari vs. Deepak reinforces the principle that trade union elections must strictly adhere to the union’s constitution. The court dismissed the appeal, upholding the decisions of the Industrial Court and the High Court, which had quashed the election program for introducing stipulations not found in the constitution. This judgment emphasizes the importance of following established rules in trade union governance and ensures that election procedures are rooted in the constitution of the Sabha and the governing statute.